Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
On 30 January 2012 15:21, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: andrzej zaborowski wrote: (I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point) It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have [p+i]+j and [l+p] and an odd isolated section of k. Probably the only case in which you can actually check whether the user was splitting, or creating afresh but using some of the same (agreeing) nodes, is if they were using Potlatch 1's live mode. And I don't think that's been good practice for a while. ;) In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags, then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/ or tags is reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the effects is the same. Practical purposes, sure, but not IP purposes. If we're saying that there is IP in the sweat-of-the-brow required to create those tags or that arrangement of nodes, then we need to know whose brow was sweaty. As I understand, you're assuming that whether ways j+k were created from way i using a split operation is significant for IP purposes. I think it isn't, same as for practical purposes. Deleting a way and recreating it with the same tags and nodes inside a changeset shouldn't be treated as creating a new way, imho. The only thing that changed is the way Id. So I'd say you can get pretty good reliability of detecting splits, merges and copying tags from nodes to ways, my guess is below 1% error frequency. Whereas always assuming the object Id to represent the history of the object yields 100% error in those cases. Cheers ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
new way denotes a split.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
If we have:
(state before changeset)
way i=[ABCDEFGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
(state after changeset)
way j=[ABCDEF], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
way k=[FGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Mog Walk }
we cannot say with certainty that there is a split. All we know are that two
new ways have been created using the nodes that were in a previous, now
deleted way. The name Frog Street might be carried over from way i, but
then again it might have been entered afresh by the changeset creator.
There's no way to tell.
_If_ it was i-i+j, rather than i-j+k, then that tilts the balance in
favour of a split. But even then it's not certain. In the absence of editor
and API support, there's no way to tell for sure.
Fortunately, in most cases, the status of the nodes should be enough. If
ABCDEFGHIJK were created by a decliner, then that'll prevent the way being
preserved anyway. Inevitably some Frog Street tags will make their way
through the process that shouldn't, and some that should be preserved will
be lost. I don't see that as a huge deal; it evens out in the round.
There are simply not so many cases of that
to warrant all the brouhaha that is made.
Absolutely. The lack of editor/API support for the past n years means that
surgical precision just isn't possible. I'm sure we'll look with kindness on
anyone who, on 2nd April, says hey, can you remove that Frog Street tag
please, that was mine. Though really if you're getting worked up about the
copyright of a streetname you should find something enjoyable to drink,
smoke or ride instead.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-Copyright-of-Split-Ways-tp5438685p5441130.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
On 30 January 2012 12:13, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote:
Frederik Ramm wrote:
There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can
be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which
a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another,
new way denotes a split.
I don't think that's necessarily true.
If we have:
(state before changeset)
way i=[ABCDEFGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
(state after changeset)
way j=[ABCDEF], { highway=unclassified; name=Frog Street }
way k=[FGHIJK], { highway=unclassified; name=Mog Walk }
we cannot say with certainty that there is a split. All we know are that two
new ways have been created using the nodes that were in a previous, now
deleted way. The name Frog Street might be carried over from way i, but
then again it might have been entered afresh by the changeset creator.
There's no way to tell.
_If_ it was i-i+j, rather than i-j+k, then that tilts the balance in
favour of a split. But even then it's not certain. In the absence of editor
and API support, there's no way to tell for sure.
(I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point)
In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags,
then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/or tags is
reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split
operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the
effects is the same. In practice the operation was a split, wasn't
it? (A changeset browser that could recognise that would be a really
useful service, I think someone was even working on one)
Cheers
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
andrzej zaborowski wrote: (I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point) It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have [p+i]+j and [l+p] and an odd isolated section of k. Probably the only case in which you can actually check whether the user was splitting, or creating afresh but using some of the same (agreeing) nodes, is if they were using Potlatch 1's live mode. And I don't think that's been good practice for a while. ;) In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags, then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/ or tags is reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the effects is the same. Practical purposes, sure, but not IP purposes. If we're saying that there is IP in the sweat-of-the-brow required to create those tags or that arrangement of nodes, then we need to know whose brow was sweaty. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-Copyright-of-Split-Ways-tp5438685p5441546.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
This discussion seems to be based on the assumption that being original creator of certain object in database constitutes copyright. That is not entirely true. If I move each of the nodes of a way, the original creator can hardly have any copyright in its shape. Even if I move a single node, that section is not a creation of the original node's creator any more. The same is true for tags. Lukas (LM_1) 2012/1/30 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: andrzej zaborowski wrote: (I thought it is i-i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point) It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i-i+j+k+l. Then add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have [p+i]+j and [l+p] and an odd isolated section of k. Probably the only case in which you can actually check whether the user was splitting, or creating afresh but using some of the same (agreeing) nodes, is if they were using Potlatch 1's live mode. And I don't think that's been good practice for a while. ;) In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some tags, then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/ or tags is reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's split operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes the effects is the same. Practical purposes, sure, but not IP purposes. If we're saying that there is IP in the sweat-of-the-brow required to create those tags or that arrangement of nodes, then we need to know whose brow was sweaty. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-Copyright-of-Split-Ways-tp5438685p5441546.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
On 29 January 2012 09:03, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote: I'm sure it is going to be tackled one way or the other but it really isn't the big issue some people seem to make of it. Splitting ways is a common thing but it is only relevant for the license change if an agreer splits a way created by a decliner and vice versa. It would also be relevant if a mapper other than the creator editing the way prior to the split, and for merges too. There are simply not so many cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made. Possibly that is true, and possibly it isn't. I think the biggest problem with split ways is that we aren't really sure how much of a problem they are. Until someone writes some code to actually process the history to deal with split/merged ways, and that code is given a test run on the database (or a representative sample of it), we're all just guessing about what impact it will have. I don't think the issue is going to go away until we have some hard numbers. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
Hi, On 01/28/2012 11:08 PM, fk270...@fantasymail.de wrote: Thank you very much for the wise decision to postpone the license change until all open problems are solved. Citation needed? Generally, - if the second-oldest node of a way is older than the way itself, the way probably was split. Its v1 belongs to the changeset where the second-oldest node was created. - if the second-oldest node of a way is younger than the way itself, the way was probably re-created by other mappers and cannot be considered property of the v1 mapper. Thus, it would make sense to assign copyright ownership to the v3 mapper (who has contributed the second-oldest node). There's no reason for such vodoo logic. A way split or merge can be determined from looking at a changeset. A changeset in which a chain of nodes is removed from one way and added to another, new way denotes a split. It is possible to determine these automatically, without comparing the date of nodes; the only difficulty is that it requires looking at a full history file sorted by changeset rather than by object ID which means that considerable processing is required, for an outcome that is worth relatively little. I'm sure it is going to be tackled one way or the other but it really isn't the big issue some people seem to make of it. Splitting ways is a common thing but it is only relevant for the license change if an agreer splits a way created by a decliner and vice versa. There are simply not so many cases of that to warrant all the brouhaha that is made. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
